A Defeatist's Guide To The War on Everything, Part Four

The series:  Part One   Part Two   Part Three

Synopsis: Let’s start a war, it doesn’t matter what we’re fighting for...

The possibilities are endless for creating endless warfare. A perpetual state of warfare grants our rulers perpetual power and leaves "the people" in perpetual bewilderment. Randolph Bourne summed it up well writing during World War I:

War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense. The machinery of government sets and enforces the drastic penalties; the minorities are either intimidated into silence, or brought slowly around by a subtle process of persuasion which may seem to them really to be converting them.

Stephen Gordon of Hammer of Truth--one of my favorite new stops in the blogosphere--writes about executive power during a time of war:

The congressional authorization for Bush to act in the Middle East carries the same relative weight as similar authorizations for our War on Drugs and War on Poverty. Does this mean we can intercept phone calls between civilians without a warrant to track down suspected marjuana growers? Are we free to tap the phone lines of poor people, since they are the obvious target in a War on Poverty?

The War on Everything is not a monolithic war. There are many battles and many fronts, but the primary motivation for all of these wars is a lust for power and domination. So, what are some examples of these wars?

One can launch a war on a perceived "social ill" such as drugs, pornography, or obscenity and indecency in media. One can launch a war on an economic condition such as poverty or a human physical condition such as obesity. Wars are also fought against abstract feelings. Terror is a feeling and terrorism is a method of violence yet the United States is fighing a war against these very things. Would it make sense to wage a war on jealously (a feeling) and murder (a method of violence)?

Disclaimer: The Defeatist's Guide to the War on Everything is not intended for everyone, but I hope the reader may gain some insight into our war-minded culture of leadership. As Reverend Quitter put it: "We are defeatists, we ultimately seek to defeat only ourselves".

Comments

[reverend quitter]

you make a fine point commandante. with this many wars currently being waged by our government or it's sympathizers, one is bound to be defeated by at least one of them.

the system cannot be reformed.

[Neil Shakespeare]

Defeatism conquers War by refusing to fight! May I suggest 'The Defeatist's Prayer':

"Lord, you have beaten me down constantly, so I give up."

[Stephen Gordon]

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

[blogenfreude]

"Larger herd sense ..." Explains all the mooing ...

[slug]

I'll fight your war when I'm finished with mine.

[e_five]

The Defeatists should trade mark the phrase "The War on Everything." Although I prefer "The Glorious and Never Ending War on Everything."

[Custom Term papers]

Very nice write up. Easy to understand and straight to the point.
Thanks for sharing here..

[Term papers]

Your article is well written. Cant wait to read more

[bobgod]

The Supreme Court of these united snakes determined in the 1977 case of Shuer v. Rhodes that when any sworn law enforcement officer acts in a manner violative (which I don't believe is a real word but chief justice Burger used it so it must be) of the Constitution, the officer is involved in an act, or acts, of treason.

When cops or politicos declare "war" on poverty, drugs, crime, terror, gayness, hot chicks with big boobs or guns for schoolchildren, they're waging war against the constitutional rights to due process and the presumption of innocence and, in the process, committing acts of treason - during time of war, no less.

That's pretty much the only crime they still hang people for.

What's more, under the same ruling as well as Miranda v. Arizona (1966), virtually every cop in amerika that has sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution is similarly guilty of treason for simply questioning suspects or subjects without informing those persons of their right against self-incrimination BEFORE questioning them.

You say you want a revolution?

Get a rope and start rounding up cops!